Texas Attorney General Opinion: M-86 Page: 2 of 3
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (M-86)
It is apparent from Section 2, supra, that the primary
purpose of Article 26881-1 was to effect the abolishment of the
office of ex officio county superintendent in certain counties.
Inasmuch as the county here involved abolished the county school
board and the ex officio county superintendent at the same time,
it is the view of this office that the requirements of Article
26881-1 were never met, and that Stephens County remained within
the scope of Article 2688e. This would also be true of all other
counties involved in abolishment situations which do not come
within the precise terms of Section 1, Article 26881-1, quoted,
in part, supra. It therefore follows that those counties which
do not fall within the terms of Article 26881-1 must continue to
follow the procedures established in Article 2688e. In answer to
your specific question, you are advised that Sections 3 and 4 of
Article 26881-1 do not supersede and have application, in lieu of
Section 1(c) of Article 2688e, to counties (other than Goliad)
which have abolished the elective county superintendent, and there-
after abolished the office of ex officio county superintendent and
county school board under Article 2688e.
Dependent upon the answer to your first question, you
have asked the following:
When should the county judge's services
and additional compensation as ex officio county
superintendent in Stephens County cease.
In connection with this question, we quote Article 2688e, Section
1(c), Vernon's Civil Statutes:
"(c) Where the majority of the qualified
electors approve the abolition of the office of
the ex officio county superintendent and county
school board, the duties of such abolished offices
as may still be required by law shall be and become
the duties of the office of county judge of said
county upon the expiration of the current term of
office of the ex officio county superintendent, and
said county judge shall not be entitled to nor re-
ceive any additional compensation as a result of
these additional duties.
It is our view that the plain terms of the statute operate to
transfer the duties of ex officio county superintendent to the
county judge only upon the expiration of the current term of
office of the ex officio county superintendent. The net effect
is that the county judge (who acts as the ex officio county super-
intendent) receives remuneration for acting as ex officio county
-391-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: M-86, text, June 8, 1967; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth269305/m1/2/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.